Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 10/08/2014Landmark Preservation Commission Page 1 October 8, 2014 Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Maren Bzdek City Hall West Meg Dunn 300 Laporte Avenue Kristin Gensmer Fort Collins, Colorado Dave Lingle Pat Tvede Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Alexandra Wallace on the Comcast cable system Belinda Zink Laurie Kadrich Karen McWilliams Josh Weinberg Gino Campana Staff Liaison, CDNS Director Preservation Planner Preservation Planner Council Liaison The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Meeting October 8, 2014 Minutes  CALL TO ORDER Chair Sladek called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.  ROLL CALL PRESENT: Tvede, Gensmer, Zink, Lingle, Ernest, Bzdek, Dunn, Sladek ABSENT: Wallace (excused) STAFF PRESENT: McWilliams, Weinberg, Schiager  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None  DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the September 10, 2014 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Landmark Preservation Commission Approved by Commission at their November 12, 2014 meeting. City of Fort Collins Page 2 Commission Questions and Discussion None Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the September 10, 2014 minutes. Ms. Dunn seconded the motion. Motion passed 8-0. [Timestamp: 5:34 p.m.] 2. 321 NORTH WHITCOMB LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to consider the application for Fort Collins Landmark designation of 321 North Whitcomb Street, the Garcia Property. APPLICANT: Kate Polk Ms. Dunn recused herself due to a conflict of interest. Staff Report Mr. Weinberg presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation The Applicant spoke about looking for an affordable, working class home with character. Upon learning about the Garcia family, she felt it was a shame that most small working class homes were not being preserved. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion A Member questioned whether the chicken coop should be included, as the application had “Building” selected as the Category Designation. Members said they would like to see both “Site” and “Building” selected. A Member asked about the application’s reference to an association with an historic figure, while later only associations with broad patterns are mentioned. There was discussion about the fact that an association can refer to a pattern of events, rather than a moment in time. Members mentioned that the statement of significance did not provide a convincing argument, and while the property probably should be designated, the application could use some re-writing. The narrative mentions “ideologies”, but doesn’t explain that reference, and is also lacking a good discussion of the Classic Cottage as a style. Members commented that the documentation should be stronger to go forward to Council. A Member asked about the mine referenced in the application, noting there wasn’t any mining in this area, and suggested it may have been a quarry. Staff supported that idea, saying quarries are sometimes confused with, or referred to, as mines. The Applicant said that perhaps the Garcia family had referred to it as a mine. Commission Deliberation Ms. Gensmer moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission pass a resolution recommending that City Council pass an ordinance designating the Garcia Property at 321 North Whitcomb Street as a Fort Collins Landmark according to City Code Chapter 14 Standards A and C, with more elaboration on standard A and C in the documentation submitted to City Council. Ms. Tvede seconded. Members discussed whether the documentation should include the periods of significance. A comment was made that, with regard to Standard C, the period of significance is usually just the year that the building was constructed, while for some of the other categories it would usually be a span of years unless there were a specific event. Ms. Gensmer amended her motion to include the periods of significance for this property under both Standards A and C. Ms. Tvede seconded. Motion passed 7-0. City of Fort Collins Page 3 Ms. Dunn returned to the meeting. [Timestamp: 5:57 p.m.] 3. REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL - 633-639 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE, MUSIC DISTRICT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Development Proposal Final Comments regarding plans to create a Music District on this site. The plans propose to rehabilitate previously altered buildings. APPLICANT: Laurie Davis, DavisDavis Architects Riley Phipps, Bohemian Foundation Staff Report Ms. McWilliams introduced the discussion, referencing the applicable codes, and what action the Commission may take. Applicant Presentation Mr. Phipps with the Bohemian Foundation explained that the property used to be two separate private residences which have since been joined. He spoke about the intended use of the building to help promote music and the arts in the community. Ms. Davis gave a presentation, showing historic photos and drawings. She referred to the two original homes as the North Sister and the South Sister throughout the presentation. She defined the goals of the project, as outlined in the staff report. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Following a Member question, the Applicant stated that there is a concrete block building they call the “bunker”, which will be removed from the property. The eligibility of that building has not yet been determined, but the Applicant believed it to be less than 50 years old. Additional historic photos were passed to the Commission. The Applicant clarified the intent to reconstruct the porch on the South Sister as closely as possible without the wraparound. The Applicant explained that the only brick now on the South Sister is the battered wall. The addition will carry the plaster back to where the outdoor stair is, with a new window in the same scale as the existing windows. Members also clarified with the Applicant that they are not demolishing the connector between the buildings, just remodeling it. They are demolishing the white wood portion on the North Sister. The Applicant clarified that South Sister had originally been blonde brick, but had been covered over with different brick and plaster to match the appearance of the North Sister. The blonde brick cannot be restored at this point, as it would be significantly damaged due to the attachment method that was used. Members asked when the south addition to the South Sister was added, and the Applicant responded that she believed it was 1964. The Applicant was not sure when the rear addition was constructed, but said it was not more than 50 years old. Members discussed with the Applicant their plans for the brick. They will reuse the brick they remove from the front arcade on the back side, and anywhere they need to fill in brick. They are keeping the newer brick on the South Sister. Members inquired about the history of the development of the buildings to determine whether the additions could be historic. Staff noted that at one time the buildings had been determined to be not eligible. There was discussion about the buildings originally being private homes that were later used as fraternities or sororities. City of Fort Collins Page 4 A Member recommended that the addition on the back end of the South Sister not blend seamlessly with the original building, so that the addition reads like an addition, using an offset, or different materials. Another Member pointed out a number of positive aspects of the design, including opening the streetscape, removing the arcade, returning to two separate houses, and capturing the architectural style of each. A suggestion was made to either make the porch more historically accurate to be a reconstruction, or make it clearly more modern and distinct to differentiate between the original and the addition. A concern was expressed that attempting to do an authentic replica gives the impression it is original. There was additional discussion about whether the new windows should replicate the original or be distinctly new. Members asked whether the front windows were older, and whether they could be reused, and suggested searching for additional historic photos. Members discussed the Secretary of Interior Standards, making a distinction between Standard 6, which addresses reconstruction of something already there, versus Standard 9, which addresses new additions. In this case, there is a difference between reconstructing a porch that was there previously and putting in a window where there wasn’t one before. Restoring windows as they were originally would require using true divided light windows rather than simulated divided light windows. Members emphasized that the front of the building that can be seen from the public right-of-way on College Avenue is the most important part of the project, and that it would be wise to invest in the historic accuracy of the front more than the alley view. The Applicant pointed out that the chimney they are removing is on the back of the property. Members expressed no significant concerns about the proposal with regard to the Secretary of Interior Standards or Section 14.48 of the Land Use Code. Chair Sladek summarized the Commission’s recommendations, making the following points:  New additions or alterations to the buildings should not blend with the historic features, but should differentiate from them.  Removal of the arcade and returning the site to two separate buildings is a very positive development for the site.  On the South Sister, either a full reconstruction, using physical and photographic evidence, or an interpretation that would be compatible with the original appearance, is encouraged.  The view of the buildings from South College Avenue is of paramount importance.  The demolition of the building at 627-631 South College Avenue is acceptable. Commission Members agreed that they were prepared to proceed with a final review. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the decision maker the approval of the final development proposal for 633-639 South College, the Music District, with the Commission’s outlined recommendations. Ms. Tvede seconded. Motion passed 8-0. Sladek thanked the Applicants, and expressed appreciation for their work on this project. [Timestamp: 7:26 p.m.] 4. FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE AVERY DUPLEX AT 134-136 NORTH SHERWOOD STREET, FORT COLLINS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Staff is pleased to present for your consideration the Avery Duplex located at 134-136 North Sherwood Street. The property has significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Preservation Standard C. APPLICANT: Charles Bacorn, Owner; Kevin Murray and Carl McWilliams, Contract Purchasers Ms. Tvede recused herself due to a conflict of interest. City of Fort Collins Page 5 Staff Report Mr. Weinberg presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Mr. McWilliams addressed the Commission, discussing the history of the home. Mr. Murray talked about the structural condition of the property, and mentioned that the neighbors were looking forward to the designation. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion In response to a question from a Member, the Applicant confirmed that the front gables are shingle, but the back is metal. The Applicant also commented that the Trumpet Vine in the front of the home was there in the 1966 photo as well. Members complimented the great work on the application. A Member inquired about the source of the personal detail on the historical owners. The Applicant described using city directories, Ancestry.com, and Colorado historic newspaper collections, and noted he is still working on the chain of title. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend that City Council pass an ordinance designating the Avery Duplex at 134-136 North Sherwood Street as a Fort Collins Landmark according to City Code Chapter 14-5 under Designation Standard C. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Motion passed 7-0. Ms. Tvede returned to the meeting. [Timestamp: 7:52 p.m.] 5. OLD CREAMERY LABORATORY BUILDING (BUTTERFLY BUILDING) – 222 LAPORTE AVENUE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed Relocation of “Butterfly Building” at 222 Laporte Avenue. APPLICANT: Jeff Mihelich, City of Fort Collins, City Manager’s Office Brian Hergott, City of Fort Collins, Operation Services Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report, pointing out the applicable Land Use Codes. Applicant Presentation Mr. Mihelich gave a presentation on behalf of the City of Fort Collins. He discussed competing goals within the City organization, and a desire to address them. He said the Butterfly Building was iconic and unique. He asked the Commission to consider whether the Butterfly Building would still be eligible for landmark designation if it were moved, stating that six of the seven aspects of integrity would be unaffected by moving the building. He mentioned that the building has already lost a lot of its context due to the other developments around it. He pointed out that moving the building to the east of the new Utilities Administration Building (a.k.a. UAB) was the most desirable option from the City’s perspective and asked the Commission to provide a recommendation based on that location. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion One Member reviewed the seven aspects of integrity and commented on whether she believed each was affected by moving the building. She pointed out that the building has already lost some of its integrity with regard to several aspects due to the changes in its surroundings and the loss of the Dairy Gold sign. She said that, while these losses have already happened, they still must be considered in terms of eligibility and whether moving the building further impacts eligibility. City of Fort Collins Page 6 Mr. Lingle disclosed that he and Ms. Bzdek had participated in an informal conceptual review of this project with City Staff last week. Members asked when the building was last reviewed for eligibility, which was in May of 2014, at which time it was determined to be individually eligible. Members discussed whether the significance of the building’s historic use and Googie architecture are high enough to offset some of the diminishment of integrity. Chair Sladek pointed out that there is more flexibility for a local designation than there is at the National level and that they don’t necessarily have to meet the State or National level of standards. He further pointed out that all seven aspects of integrity do not have to be in place, just a preponderance of them. Mr. Mihelich commented that he would like to explore the idea of adding a sign in a similar style to the Dairy Gold sign, if that would help to preserve the building’s eligibility. Members were generally in agreement that bringing back the Dairy Gold sign would be a very positive step, barring any trademark-related legality, and commented that it would help with the feeling and association aspects. The restoration of the Northern Hotel sign was given as an example. Mr. Mihelich said they would look into that. Members questioned what the future use of the building would be. Mr. Mihelich assured the Commission that the building would be used, but that ideas for its specific use were still being explored, including an educational function with regard to sustainability. This idea was well received by Members, as it could nicely tie the UAB to the idea of preservation of historic structures. Members also commented that they liked the idea of marking the outline of the original building and using interpretive signage at both the new and old location. Chair Sladek pointed out that the interpretive signage should not reference the name “Butterfly Building”, which is a recent nickname and not historically accurate. Chair Sladek requested that the City launch a landmark designation process for this building, the Old City Hall building, and the Texaco building within the next six months. Mr. Mihelich committed to start the process on all three of those buildings right away. A Member commented that the design of the UAB as currently proposed is not representative of the kind of cutting edge technology for which the building will be used and suggested that the City take another look at its design elements. A Member pointed out that, because the Commission had seen a previous design which was more respectful to this historic building, any motion will have to defend how this design meets Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 with regard to protection of the building to the maximum extent feasible. A Member inquired about the fact that the UAB was originally supposed to be net zero. Mr. Mihelich explained that this building will be better than Gold Certified LEED, which is the City’s standard. He went on to explain that the budget for the building was $20 million, but the original design came in closer to $27 million, which they could not justify to Council. He said that they have already had some discussions about making the skin of the building less utilitarian. Members pointed out that the new UAB will be flanked by two historic buildings from the same era, and that design inspiration can be taken from both. Chair Sladek summarized the Commission’s comments, making the following points:  Of the three location options presented, the Commission prefers the southeast corner of the property.  The Commission would like to see the Dairy Gold sign reconstructed.  The Commission would like to see a functional use defined for the building that is consistent with its historic use as a promotional vehicle.  The Commission agrees that the marking of the original location and the use of interpretive signage are of critical importance to the project. City of Fort Collins Page 7  The Commission agrees that the design of the new UAB should consider the context of the Butterfly Building and the Old City Hall. While the relocation of the Butterfly Building does not meet the “maximum extent feasible” requirements of Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, this can be mitigated by drawing design inspiration for the new UAB from its mid-century modern neighbors.  The Commission also requests that the City launch a landmark designation process for the Butterfly Building, the Old City Hall building, and the Texaco (Haston Oil) building. Members were in agreement that these points represented their recommendations and indicated they were ready to proceed with a final review. Commission Deliberation Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the decision maker the approval of the final development proposal for the Utilities Administration Building in regards to its impact on the Butterfly Building, based on compliance with Municipal Code Sections 14.5 and 14.48 and Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code, finding that, while the relocation of the Butterfly Building is detrimental to the seven aspects of integrity and does not meet the Land Use Code standard of “to the maximum extent feasible”, the proposed design, in conjunction with the Commission’s outlined recommendations, mitigates those concerns. Ms. Zink seconded. Motion passed 8-0. Sladek thanked the Applicant, and Mr. Mihelich thanked the Commission for their input, noting that their suggestions will make this a much better project. [Timestamp: 8:47 p.m.]  OTHER BUSINESS Members were reminded to provide City-issued iPads to Staff for updates. Chair Sladek addressed the Commission about the “Building on Basics” ballet item which would be discussed by City Council at the October 11, 2014, Work Session. Chair Sladek asked whether the Commission would like him to send a letter of support for funding to complete the restoration on the Carnegie Building. Members indicated they would also like to include Club Tico. Mr. Ernest mentioned that he had provided a letter of support for Carnegie as a private citizen, not as a Commission Member.  ADJOURNMENT Chair Sladek adjourned the meeting at 9:03 p.m.